Thursday, March 26, 2015

[Three years ago I
wrote an essay summarizing my ideas regarding human intelligence and
the Flynn effect. I would describe that effort as less than
successful. There are several reasons for this—laziness, too much
excitement, too little time, trying to fit to an academic form. And
unfortunately I have had little opportunity in recent years to make
the necessary revisions. Recently however I have managed to revisit
the work and insert some improvements—mostly changes in
terminology, expansions of explanations, and a simpler tone. I won't
suggest that the new version will prove any more influential than its
predecessor, but it does set my mind at ease to know that when I had
something I thought worthy to say, I at least made the attempt to say
it well.]

Introduction. The Flynn effect is a well known but
insufficiently explained phenomenon. Many different causes have been
suggested for the population-wide generational increases in raw
intelligence scores—including heterosis, better nutrition, more
abundant education, environmental complexity and various combinations
of the above—but no explanation offered so far has proven to be
scientifically or logically compelling. This lack of progress might
be indicative of a misunderstanding of human intelligence itself,
which is depicted these days almost entirely in terms of brain-based
functioning alone. That brain-based focus however has often been the
bedevilment in the many offered explanations of the Flynn effect, for
it has been difficult to reconcile purported neural mechanisms
producing individual intelligence differences with purported neural
mechanisms producing widespread intelligence gains.

Accordingly, this essay will propose an alternative model of human
intelligence, one decidedly not centered on the human brain. This
model will highlight two complementary aspects of human intelligence:
1. environmental intelligence, defined as the total amount of
non-biological pattern, structure and form tangibly contained within
the human environment, and 2. neuronal intelligence,
defined as an individual's capacity to absorb and respond to
environmental intelligence. It can be shown that it is
environmental intelligence that serves as the sole driver of
the Flynn effect, independently of neuronal intelligence.
It will also be demonstrated how environmental intelligence is
similar to but far more comprehensive than the concept known as
environmental complexity. Finally, it will be shown that this
dual-aspect model of human intelligence can effectively answer many
of the Flynn effect paradoxes enumerated by James Flynn himself.

Background. Generational gains in raw intelligence
scores were first noticed by several individuals—including Reed
Tuddenham and Richard Lynn—but it was James Flynn in the 1980s who
most clearly demonstrated the ubiquitous nature of what has come to
be known as the Flynn effect. In the thirty years since, the Flynn
effect has attracted a good deal of study and ink—in part because
the phenomenon has been regarded as surprising, and in part because
the phenomenon has continued to defy adequate explanation.

This situation stands in contrast to many other areas of
intelligence research, including investigations into the source and
impact of individual and group intelligence differences. Using factor
analysis, identical twin studies and many other tools of modern
cognitive science, researchers have been able to demonstrate
consistently that individual intelligence differences produce
significant impact in such areas as academics and career, and that
these individual differences are driven mostly by genetics and are
almost certainly neuronally based. These discoveries and achievements
have led to a nearly unanimous consensus that intelligence is to be
regarded exclusively as a brain-produced activity—in short, greater
intelligence is spawned by a more effective brain.

The Flynn effect, however, throws something of a monkey wrench
into this widely held view. To accept the conclusion that
intelligence is exclusively a brain-produced activity—an activity
determined primarily by genetics—one must anticipate that overall
human intelligence will remain relatively stable across time, in
accordance with all standard biological and evolutionary principles.
That is why the Flynn effect has been regarded as so surprising: the
sizable and widespread raw intelligence gains recorded across the
entire twentieth century far outstrip any brain-based improvements
that might be anticipated under a biological/neuronal/evolutionary
framework.

One response to this dilemma has been to search for an orthogonal
influence underlying the Flynn effect, and James Flynn himself (1999)
has uttered that very reaction in almost those exact same terms ("it
is as if some unseen hand is propelling scores upward"). Richard
Lewontin (1976) has already provided a convincing description for how
such an orthogonal influence would work [Flynn's description of
Lewontin's idea: "(Lewontin) distinguished the role of genes
within groups from the role of genes between groups. He imagined a
sack of seedcorn with plenty of genetic variation randomly divided
into two batches, each of which would therefore be equal for overall
genetic quality. Batch A is grown in a uniform and optimal
environment, so within that group all height differences at maturity
are due to genetic variation; batch B is grown in a uniform
environment which lacks enough nitrates, so within that group all
height differences are also genetic. However, the difference in
average height between the two groups will, of course, be due
entirely to the unequal quality of their two environments....genes
(could) explain 100 percent of IQ differences within generations, and
yet, environment might explain 100 percent of the average IQ
difference between generations."]. But no one has ever pursued
this line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, in part because
what paralyzes the pursuit is the widespread certainty—a dogma
really—that intelligence is strictly a brain-produced phenomenon.
Any offered explanation for the Flynn effect—be it heterosis,
better nutrition, improved education, environmental complexity, or
any combination or alternative to the above—any explanation it
seems has to be brought back ultimately to human neurology, has to
induce a material impact upon the human brain. Vigor, nutrients,
schooling, video games—whatever is driving intelligence
gains, it must somehow change the human brain, must make it
more effective, make it more intelligent. Unfortunately, this
circling back to neurology serves only to heighten the original
tension of the problem: if there are neural mechanisms explaining
individual intelligence differences, and there are different
neural mechanisms driving population-wide intelligence gains, how are
these mechanisms supposed to co-exist within the same human brain and
not interfere with the intelligence-producing impact of the other. If
Lewontin's suggestion has been offered as the pathway to a more
straightforward explanation of human intelligence, its application to
human neurology has proven to be anything but.

A decisive alternative would be to drop the dogma altogether.
Nothing actually compels acceptance of the idea that intelligence is
strictly a brain-produced phenomenon. Despite the widespread
consensus, no one has yet to demonstrate an actual neural mechanism
producing an actual intelligence effect. Neural activity certainly
accompanies intelligence behavior—there is plenty of
evidence for that—but the correlation does not go so far as to
prove causation. Furthermore, with the Flynn effect still a puzzle
and a mystery, bumping against many fundamental assumptions regarding
biology, evolution and intelligence, it would seem there is
reasonable motivation for casting the cognitive net a little wider.

This essay describes a model of human intelligence that removes
the location of intelligence away from the human brain and
places it more squarely within the human environment, a concept that
will be dubbed environmental intelligence. Thus freed from the
constraints of biology, neurology and evolution (that is, freed from
the constraints of the human brain), human intelligence can be seen
as able to change and accumulate at a significant pace, which indeed
it must if it is going to produce the phenomenon known as the Flynn
effect. The human brain still gets to play an important role within
this new model—under a concept defined as neuronal
intelligence—but this role will be seen as necessarily
secondary. Instead of producing human intelligence, the human
brain will be depicted as responding to the intelligence
contained within the surrounding environment, an idea not as radical
as it might at first appear, since responsiveness of course
has always been the activity traditionally reserved for neural
systems.

Environmental intelligence and
neuronal intelligence. A fresh perspective can be gained on
human intelligence by considering it as the product of two orthogonal
components—environmental intelligence and neuronal
intelligence.

Environmental intelligence is defined as the total amount
of non-biological pattern, structure and form tangibly contained
within the human environment. Every artifact a human encounters,
every synthesized product that crosses his path, every constructed
invention helping to mark his way—all the way from the simplest
spoken hello to the intricacies of the latest and greatest
microchip—each formulated element enveloping a modern man's
existence, an envelopment now so thorough it practically eclipses the
natural world from view, all of this, every last patterned piece of
it, forms the sum total of environmental intelligence. Even
the human body, still the most biological, non-artificial entity to
be found within a modern human's sensory world, even the human body
comes these days invariably clothed, manicured, bespectacled,
bejeweled and perfumed, which is to say the human body comes these
days abundantly encased in many of the diverse varieties of
environmental intelligence. Everywhere a man looks, every
moment he listens, every texture he brushes against, he finds himself
inundated with a constructed cornucopia built up out of order, shape,
number, rule; and this cornucopia in turn incessantly broadcasts back
into his neural system the elements of its underlying
characteristics—symmetry, repetition, pattern, structure, form.
Environmental intelligence is the influence so easily
overlooked because it is the influence so invariably right there,
right before one's very eyes. These days environmental
intelligence is utterly ubiquitous, composing the very fabric of
modern human existence, thoroughly embodied in the furniture, the
transportation, the words, the games, the weapons, the gifts, the
gardens, the laboratories, the music—thoroughly embodied in quite
literally, or at least quite literally once the few remaining
biological elements have been removed, quite literally the
everything.

One advantage of this definition of environmental intelligence
is that it directly and observably connects human intelligence to the
sudden advancement of the human species. Prior to the human great
leap forward, there would have been essentially no environmental
intelligence to be found anywhere within the human surroundings.
No written words. No constructed buildings. No artifacts of even the
simplest kind. Prior to the human great leap forward, man would have
been surrounded by only the most natural of settings, all the way
from his skin to the farthest horizon, exactly as would have been the
case for all the other animals; and not coincidentally it would have
been perfectly correct to assess man's overall, absolute level of
intelligence at that time as essentially zero. (Ancient homo
sapiens certainly were not capable of taking an IQ exam,
let alone answering its questions correctly, let alone constructing
such an exam in the first place.) But beginning with ostrich shell
beads, bone awls, rudimentary clothing and cave paintings, and
proceeding straight through to domesticated crops, mud-plastered
abodes and towering pyramids, and crescendoing today in highways,
skyscrapers, televisions and rockets to the moon, the one
indisputable observation that can be made throughout that entire
course of recent human progress is that no matter in what environs
man suddenly found himself, he found himself always surrounded by an
ever growing totality of non-biological pattern, structure, symmetry,
repetition and form. For the last fifty thousand years, man has been
increasingly enveloping himself in the many and diverse material
artifacts that ultimately compose the sum total of environmental
intelligence, and not coincidentally, man has been displaying
throughout that entire fifty thousand year interval the ever more
abundant signs of intelligence.

To actually measure environmental intelligence would be
admittedly a pragmatic nightmare. The sheer enormity of pattern,
structure and form contained within the modern world would alone
overwhelm any genuine effort to size it, and furthermore, there could
be no easy agreement on how best to quantify the structure contained
within for instance an automobile or a library book. But these
practical difficulties do not nullify the material certainty of
measurement—environmental intelligence tangibly exists, one
can touch it, hear it, talk about it, it is there right before one's
very eyes. Plus there is no need to actually measure environmental
intelligence in order to attest to its ever increasing presence
and influence. Think of the North American continent alone. Only a
few hundred years ago, man dwelled there in but a handful of places,
and outside of a few isolated civilizations the amount of
non-biological pattern, structure and form to be found within the
Western Hemisphere would have been extremely modest. But by one
hundred years ago, man had taken up residence from nearly coast to
coast and had augmented his New World surroundings with an entire
patchwork of fields, houses, roads, signs and machines. Today just
one glance at the skylines of such cities as Chicago and Toronto
would be more than sufficient to convince even the most dire skeptic
that by almost any reasonable means of measurement, it would
have to be calculated that the total amount of human environmental
intelligence has been persistently, indeed rapidly, on the rise.

The second component of human intelligence, neuronal
intelligence, is in nearly every respect nothing at all like the
first. Neuronal intelligence is defined as an
individual's capacity to absorb and respond to environmental
intelligence, making it clear that neuronal intelligence
is considered here to be a secondary (a responding) construct. This
of course runs counter to the prevailing wisdom. The prevailing
wisdom would claim that all the many material artifacts forming the
sum total of environmental intelligence are not so much the
embodiment of intelligence as they are the results of
intelligence, the results of the wondrous if still somewhat
mysterious mechanisms of the human brain (where indeed all the
intelligence must reside). This presumed equivalence between
intelligence and human neurology has arisen in large measure—and
quite understandably enough—from the many successful results and
findings of modern intelligence research. With the employment of IQ
exams now widespread, and with the correlation of their results
against twin and other family studies, against career and academic
outcomes, against neuroimaging and other laboratory techniques,
intelligence researchers have been able to formulate a great deal of
predictive insight into what drives individual and group intelligence
differences and have been able to demonstrate with a high degree of
confidence that such differences are for the most part genetically
derived and are almost entirely neuronally based. Neuronal
intelligence has become the component of intelligence with which
everyone is most familiar, because it is the component of
intelligence that has been the most accurately and thoroughly
measured, and the most successfully understood.

The one pitfall in these many informative findings of modern
intelligence research is that they have been so successful in
tying individual and group intelligence differences to genetics and
neurology that they have managed to convince researchers—to the
point of near unanimity and to the point of dogma—that all
intelligence differences must be tied to genetics and/or neurology,
including intelligence differences that manifest across time (the
Flynn effect). Invariably these days, when an explanation for the
Flynn effect is offered—whatever that explanation may be—it is
offered first and foremost as a temporal and population-wide
influence on the human brain. But in point of fact, all the evidence
backing the neuronal, genetic basis for individual and group
intelligence differences is evidence both gathered at and applicable
for only a particular moment in time; the evidence remains utterly
silent when applied across time. All the illuminating findings
of statistical analysis, including the resultant concept of a general
intelligence (Spearman's g), arise strictly from comparisons made
against one's contemporaries, and not against one's ancestors or
descendants. Indeed most intelligence researchers recognize this
distinction well enough to realize that any neural mechanisms that
might explain individual intelligence differences would likely be
very poor candidates as neural mechanisms underlying the Flynn
effect; and yet no researcher is able to carry this distinction to
its most logical conclusion, namely that there might not be any
neural mechanisms to be associated with the Flynn effect, not in any
way whatsoever. Having been witness to so much present-moment
evidence for the neural/genetic causation of individual intelligence
differences—causation that is perfectly plausible applied across
the range of biological diversity within the human
population—researchers then cannot let the idea go, even when
considering intelligence differences that span an entirely separate
domain. And thus nearly every explanation for the Flynn effect
continues to be offered with its seemingly mandatory tie back to
human neurology, and thus nearly every explanation for the Flynn
effect continues to fail, and fail for nearly the same reason—the
seemingly mandatory tie back to human neurology becomes downright
implausible applied across just a handful of generations.

The way past this predicament begins first with a more thorough
examination of that preeminent tool for measuring neuronal
intelligence—the IQ test. It is the comparative, normed results
of IQ tests that provide nearly all the basis for the present
understanding regarding individual and group intelligence
differences, and so naturally it is the results that get most of the
attention. But an IQ test is more than just its normed results; an IQ
test has content—and not just any content. An IQ test does not
assess for instance an individual's capacity to scavenge food, ward
off predators or procreate, and an IQ test does not measure one's
ability to run, leap or throw. The challenges that one faces on an IQ
test are challenges composed almost entirely out of a particular set
of material artifacts—language, arithmetic, geometrical puzzles,
and so on—artifacts which are in turn built up out of a basic set
of underlying characteristics—symmetry, pattern, structure,
repetition, form. These underlying characteristics are of course the
very same characteristics already encountered under the description
of environmental intelligence. When examined carefully, an IQ
test reveals its content as made up out of miniaturized, formalized
versions of the types of structural material artifacts one encounters
nearly everywhere in the everyday world; which is to say, the content
of an IQ test stands as a proxy for environmental intelligence.
When an individual takes an IQ test, what he demonstrates is his
relative capacity for absorbing and responding to these proxies for
environmental intelligence, which in turn points to his
relative capacity for absorbing and responding to the environmental
intelligence he will encounter in his everyday world. Therefore
it is not in the least bit surprising that those individuals who
demonstrate greater ability in mastering the complexities of an IQ
test are also the individuals who tend to demonstrate greater ability
when navigating the complexities of the real world. This analysis of
the content and challenge of an IQ test leads directly back to the
stated definition of neuronal intelligence: neuronal
intelligence is an individual's capacity to absorb and respond to
environmental intelligence, with a strong emphasis to be
placed on both a. capacity, and b. response to environmental
intelligence. By itself, neuronal intelligence cannot
explain human intelligence, because by itself, neuronal
intelligence is merely a capacity in need of a target. That
target is environmental intelligence—the total amount of
non-biological pattern, structure and form tangibly contained within
the human environment, the other essential component in any
comprehensive description of human intelligence.

It is important to emphasize one more time the orthogonal
relationship of environmental intelligence and neuronal
intelligence. Neuronal intelligence is a biological
capacity, a human behavioral ability, and thus there is no objection
to associating neuronal intelligence with neural and genetic
causes. But environmental intelligence is not biological at
all; it is instead a collection of characteristics from physical,
mostly man-made artifacts, quantifiable, changeable and accumulative
within the material world, and thus environmental intelligence
stands completely independent of any neurological or evolutionary
constraint.

Environmental intelligence and neuronal intelligence
are each an essential component of human intelligence, but each
delivers its influence in an entirely separate domain.

The Model. With the path now prepared by these
definitions and descriptions of environmental intelligence and
neuronal intelligence, an example can be developed
illustrating how these two components, working simultaneously and yet
independently, combine to explain the known and observable
characteristics of intelligence as a whole, including the
characteristic known as the Flynn effect. All that is required
further are two straightforward assumptions: 1. the practical
difficulties in measuring environmental intelligence can be
theoretically overcome; and 2. consistent with observations from
human history, environmental intelligence can be assumed to
increase over any significant interval of time.

In the example to be developed, intelligence characteristics will
be assessed at two different moments in time, call them Time 1 and
Time 2, with an interval of several generations passing between these
moments. The intelligence characteristics of the individuals living
at Time 1 and Time 2 will be described in the usual way, via results
on intelligence exams, and at these two moments the intelligence
characteristics of the environment will also need to be
detailed. Drawing upon the assumption that the practical difficulties
in measuring environmental intelligence can be
theoretically overcome, a system of measurement will be assumed that
is able to accurately assess the total amount of non-biological
pattern, structure and form tangibly contained within the human
environment, quantifying this amount in something called
environmental intelligence units (EIU). At Time 1, the total amount
of pattern, structure and form within the human environment will be
assumed to be measured at 200 EIU. Then several generations later, at
Time 2, the total amount of pattern, structure and form within the
human environment will be measured at double the previous amount, at
400 EIU. Such a sizable increase across several generations might
seem too large at first but is actually quite reasonable by recent
human standards (consider for instance the enormous amount of
environmental change from the late 1800s to the late 1900s). And at
any rate, the hypothesized numbers are not critical in and of
themselves: any significant increase in environmental
intelligence across the interval of time being considered will be
sufficient to demonstrate the principles pertinent to the example.

At Time 1, with the amount of environmental intelligence
having been measured at 200 EIU, a standard battery of intelligence
tests is administered to a broad sampling from the population, and as
is done with real world intelligence exams, the raw scores are then
normed and delineated into ranked categories. The essential outcome
of this process can be summarized through the exam results of just
three individuals—call them A1, B1 and C1—individuals who
represent respectively results consistent with high intelligence,
medium intelligence, and low intelligence. Their raw scores might be
stated in a variety of ways: a) as the actual number of questions
answered correctly, or b) as the percentage of questions answered
correctly, or c) as the percentage of environmental intelligence
successfully absorbed and mastered. This last approach is derived
from the discussion above, where the content of an IQ exam has been
described as a proxy for environmental intelligence. If the
battery of tests administered to A1, B1 and C1 is in fact a perfect
proxy for environmental intelligence, then the percentage of
questions answered correctly can stand as a percentage measure of the
amount of environmental intelligence successfully mastered.
For instance, when it is discovered that A1 can correctly answer 80%
of the test questions, the result could be stated as follows: A1 has
demonstrated the capacity to master roughly 80% of the environmental
intelligence contained in the IQ exam, which indicates a capacity
to master roughly 80% of the environmental intelligence to be
found in his everyday world. In a similar vein, when B1 and C1
respectively answer 70% and 60% of the test questions correctly, it
can be said they are demonstrating the capacity to master
corresponding percentages of environmental intelligence.

The results of both the environmental and individual intelligence
measures at Time 1 are summarized in the following chart:

Time 1
(Environmental Intelligence: 200 EIU)

Test Scores

Population Rank

A1

80%

High Intelligence

B1

70%

Medium Intelligence

C1

60%

Low Intelligence

At this point, all the standard types of analysis regarding
individual intelligence differences can be performed quite
adequately, leading to the type of informative findings that fall
under the heading of neuronal intelligence. Using relative
intelligence rankings, and employing factor analysis and
incorporating an assortment of statistical and biological information
gathered from the population at large, scientists will be able to
show with considerable confidence that, all other things being equal,
A1 can expect greater success than his B1 and C1 peers in such areas
as academics and career, and that the individual intelligence
differences between A1, B1 and C1 can be attributed in large degree
to biological and genetic causes. The comparative, normed
intelligence scores at Time 1 (or at any given time) are sufficient
to provide a wealth of information regarding the characteristics of
neuronal intelligence.

An absolute measure of
intelligence for A1, B1 and C1 has not yet been determined, but it
would be a simple matter to do so. With a measurement of 200 EIU
having been assigned to Time 1's environmental intelligence,
and with the raw test results able to be stated as a percentage of
environmental intelligence effectively mastered, a quick
calculation reveals that A1's absolute level of intelligence is 160
EIU (200 EIU x 80%), B1's is 140 EIU, and C1's is 120 EIU. The chart
can be updated to reflect these figures:

Time 1 (Environmental
Intelligence: 200 EIU)

Test Scores

Population Rank

Absolute Intelligence

A1

80%

High Intelligence

160 EIU

B1

70%

Medium Intelligence

140 EIU

C1

60%

Low Intelligence

120 EIU

It should be noted that this additional calculation of an absolute
intelligence score does not aid at all in the understanding of
neuronal intelligence. As far as individual and group
intelligence differences are concerned, the inclusion of an absolute
intelligence score is nothing but a superfluous addendum—the
normed, relative intelligence rankings are more than sufficient by
themselves to make present-moment findings regarding neuronal
intelligence. However, the inclusion of an absolute intelligence
score will nonetheless prove to be invaluable, for it will turn out
to be an essential feature in the comparison of intelligence
characteristics between Time 1 and Time 2.

As a reminder, environmental intelligence is assumed to
increase over time, and at Time 2 the total amount of pattern,
structure and form contained within the human environment is assessed
to have increased to 400 EIU. Since Time 2 occurs several generations
after Time 1, A1, B1 and C1 are no longer alive. But since A1, B1 and
C1 were only representative individuals culled from the overall Time
1 test results, it is perfectly reasonable at Time 2 to call upon
their equivalent descendants—call them A2, B2 and C2—all of whom
can be taken as biologically and genetically similar to their Time 1
ancestors. Indeed, when the standard battery of intelligence tests is
administered to the Time 2 population, A2, B2 and C2 score in a
familiar pattern: A2 answers 80% of the test questions correctly,
which is interpreted as reflecting an 80% mastery of Time 2's
environmental intelligence, and B2 and C2, to no surprise,
score 70% and 60% respectively. Once again the population results are
normed and delineated into ranked categories, and just as was the
case with their ancestors, A2 falls within the range of high
intelligence, B2 falls within the range of medium intelligence, and
C2 falls within the range of low intelligence. These Time 2 results
can be summarized as follows:

Time 2 (Environmental
Intelligence: 400 EIU)

Test Scores

Population Rank

A2

80%

High Intelligence

B2

70%

Medium Intelligence

C2

60%

Low Intelligence

Once again, all the standard types of analysis regarding
individual and group intelligence differences can now be performed
quite adequately, and at Time 2 the findings regarding neuronal
intelligence will look almost identical to the findings from Time
1. Using factor analysis and population statistics, scientists will
once again be able to state that A2 can anticipate greater success
than his B2 and C2 peers, and that the individual intelligence
differences between A2, B2 and C2 are to be attributed in large
degree to biological and genetic influences. If the scientists were
to look at just the pattern of individual and group intelligence
differences from Time 1 to Time 2, they would be led to believe that
the overall intelligence characteristics are quite stable within this
population, just as might be anticipated for a capacity strongly
under the influence of biological/evolutionary forces.

And yet at Time 2, the scientists will decidedly not be
talking about the stability of intelligence. Instead they will be
talking about a significant anomaly that has taken place.

There are several ways to characterize this anomaly. The first is
to begin by examining what has taken place as the IQ tests have been
administered to the general population. The first intelligence tests
offered to the Time 2 population were the exact same tests given to
the Time 1 population, but as it turns out, those tests are now
laughably easy, to the point that nearly everyone scores in the
uppermost ranges. This prevents a meaningful comparison of results,
since no one is being challenged anymore and nearly everyone is
scoring the same. In order to restore the tests to their former
condition of being able to provide meaningful comparisons, the test
producers find they must beef up the exams, make the questions more
difficult, after which the relative rankings reemerge. It is only
after such modifications have been made that the tests can be
effectively administered to the population, with the resulting scores
as shown.

In one sense, the reason that the IQ tests have to be modified at
Time 2 is clear from the parameters of the example itself. Since the
content of an IQ test stands as a proxy for environmental
intelligence, and since environmental intelligence has
significantly increased from Time 1 to Time 2, the tests must be
reconstituted in order to reflect this fact; that is, the additional
amount of pattern, structure and form to be found within the Time 2
environment must be incorporated into the Time 2 exams in order to
assess the population's relative dexterity with this new structural
material. But in an entirely different sense, another reason emerges
for explaining why the Time 2 exams have to be modified—namely,
that this is precisely what has been taking place in the real world
throughout the entire last century. Ever since IQ exams were first
administered, each successive generation has been scoring
progressively better on the existing exams, to the point that test
makers find they must modify the exams in order to keep them
challenging, in order to maintain their usefulness for comparative
purposes. These modifications generally take the shape of more
difficult questions, questions that incorporate a greater amount of
pattern, structure and form. Thus by virtue of the parameters of the
example itself and by virtue of the evidence from the real world, it
can be seen that intelligence tests must be strengthened in order to
counteract the persistent influence of the increasing amount of
complexity within the human environment.

And it is not just the tests that need to be reconsidered. The
intelligence characteristics of A2, B2 and C2 must also be
reexamined, because they are now evincing two seemingly contradictory
facts:

The neuronal intelligence characteristics of A2, B2
and C2 are essentially identical to the neuronal intelligence
characteristics of their A1, B1 and C1 ancestors.

The overall amount of intelligence being displayed by A2, B2
and C2 is essentially double the amount of intelligence that was
displayed by their A1, B1 and C1 ancestors.

The second fact arises from recognizing that A2, B2 and C2 are
correctly answering the same percentage of questions as did their
Time 1 ancestors but are doing so while taking a far more difficult
test. This comes out also through the calculation of absolute
intelligence scores for A2, B2 and C2. With Time 2 environmental
intelligence assessed at 400 EIU, A2's test results reflect an
absolute intelligence score of 320 EIU (400 EIU x 80%). B2 scores at
280 EIU, and C2 scores at 240 EIU—in each case a doubling over A1,
B1 and C1:

Time 2 (Environmental
Intelligence: 400 EIU)

Test Scores

Population Rank

Absolute Intelligence

A2

80%

High Intelligence

320 EIU

B2

70%

Medium Intelligence

280 EIU

C2

60%

Low Intelligence

240 EIU

As contradictory as these results might at first appear, this
example reflects exactly what has been happening in the real world.
The only difference is that the example also includes an assessment
of environmental intelligence, as well as an analysis of the
impact of environmental intelligence on individual
intelligence differences, differences that in this instance manifest
over an interval of time. And what arises from this example is
a clear indication of exactly what produces the population-wide
generational increases in raw intelligence scores. The sole driver of
raw intelligence gains is the increasing amount of environmental
intelligence, the increasing amount of non-biological pattern,
structure and form tangibly contained within the human environment.

And by corollary, neuronal intelligence—including any
mention at all of neurology or genetics—has absolutely nothing
to do with intelligence gains over time. Neuronal
intelligence, the biological capacity to absorb and respond to
environmental intelligence, that capacity will remain nearly
constant over time, but that capacity will encounter an ever
expanding target.

Flynn's Paradoxes. In his book What is
Intelligence?, Flynn (2007) describes four paradoxes he
associates with the Flynn effect. To someone not obsessed with the
brain's monopoly on human intelligence, however, these paradoxes are
not paradoxical at all—each can be answered simply and directly
using this essay's dual-component model of human intelligence.

Two of the paradoxes, labeled as the intelligence paradox
and the mental retardation paradox, state the apparent
incongruity that if the Flynn effect were literally true, then humans
from one generation would be too implausibly dumb or too implausibly
smart compared to humans from a different generation. In Flynn's
words:

"If huge IQ gains are intelligence gains, why are we
not struck by the extraordinary subtlety of our children's
conversation? Why do we not have to make allowances for the
limitations of our parents? A difference of some 18 points in Full
Scale IQ over two generations ought to be highly visible.

"If we project IQ gains back to 1900, the average IQ
scored against current norms was somewhere between 50 and 70. If IQ
gains are in any sense real, we are driven to the absurd conclusion
that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded."

The resolution to these two paradoxes is to recognize that Flynn
is confusing the two different aspects of intelligence; he is
confusing environmental intelligence with neuronal
intelligence. In particular, he is using the changed levels in
one aspect (environmental intelligence) to infer a
corresponding change in the other aspect (neuronal intelligence).
That inference is entirely unwarranted.

Consider the individual named A1 in the model. At Time 1, A1 is
assessed to be highly intelligent. He demonstrates an above-average
ability to absorb and respond to environmental intelligence by
correctly answering 80% of the test questions presented to him, and
as A1 navigates through his Time 1 world, it can be anticipated he
will experience relatively greater achievement in such areas as
academics and career compared for instance to his B1 and C1 peers.
But when A1's absolute (raw) intelligence score of 160 EIU is
compared to the population of Time 2, A1 suddenly appears much less
smart. 160 EIU scores far below the 240 EIU of C2, a person assessed
to be of low intelligence at Time 2. If 240 EIU is considered to be
of low intelligence at Time 2, then A1's score of 160 EIU seems to
mark him as a borderline imbecile.

So which is it? Is A1 highly intelligent or is he an imbecile?
This paradox is resolved by recognizing that A1's neuronal
intelligence is not subject to change. A1's absolute intelligence
score of 160 EIU has as much to do with the time period during which
it was registered as it has to do with A1's biological capacity. If
A1 could be magically transported forward in time and raised in the
Time 2 world, he would absorb and respond to about 80% of the Time 2
environmental intelligence and would score correspondingly on
a Time 2 intelligence exam, making it clear once again that he is a
highly intelligent individual. A1's apparently low score of 160 EIU
has nothing to do with A1's intelligence abilities; it has everything
to do with the change in environmental intelligence from Time
1 to Time 2.

This works exactly the same way going backwards in time. Consider
C2, who is assessed at Time 2 to be of low intelligence. But when
C2's absolute (raw) intelligence score of 240 EIU is compared to the
Time 1 population, where a score of 160 EIU is considered to be
highly intelligent, C2 suddenly comes across as a Mensa candidate,
and one wonders if C2 simply had the misfortune of being born too
late.

So which is it? Is C2 of low intelligence or a Mensa candidate?
Once again, the resolution is to recognize that C2's neuronal
intelligence is not subject to change. If C2 could be magically
transported back in time and raised in the Time 1 world, he would
absorb only about 60% of the Time 1 environmental intelligence
and would score relatively poorly on the Time 1 intelligence exam.
The timing of one's birth does not alter one's personal intellectual
ability.

In addition to these hypothetical examples from the model, Flynn
provides a real world scenario that brings out both the paradox and
its resolution in the most enlightening of ways. After noting that
the average raw intelligence score from around the year 1900 would
translate to an IQ of about 50 to 70 on today's scale, Flynn raises
the specter of the following tableau:

"Jensen relates an interview with a young man with a
Wechsler IQ of 75. Despite the fact that he attended baseball games
frequently, he was vague about the rules, did not know how many
players were on a team, could not name the teams his home team
played, and could not name any of the most famous players.

"When Americans attended baseball games a century
ago, were almost half of them too dull to follow the game or use a
scorecard? My father who was born in 1885 taught me to keep score and
spoke as if this was something virtually everyone did when he was a
boy. How did Englishmen play cricket in 1900? Taking their mean IQ at
face value, most of them would need a minder to position them in the
field, tell them when to bat, and tell them when the innings was
over."

This is a quintessential example of mistaking a change in raw
intelligence scores as evidence for a change in neuronal
intelligence, when in fact it is evidence for a change in
environmental intelligence. Think about incorporating
questions dealing with baseball rules into an intelligence test. If
such questions had appeared on an exam in say the year 1800, no one
at all, including the smartest people who then lived, would have been
able to answer such questions correctly (other than by random luck).
By contrast, if such questions were to appear on today's intelligence
exams, many individuals, including those of low-to-average
intelligence, would be able to answer the questions
correctly—baseball and its rules have become an established part of
the human environment, their widespread presence and influence are
now thoroughly absorbed by a large percentage of the human
population. As Flynn indicates, it would be only those with an IQ of
around 75 or under who would have limited potential to answer such
questions correctly.

So does this imply that the smartest people from the year 1800
must have had the same intellectual capacity as Jensen's young man?
It of course does not imply that at all.

The critical moment in time would have been around the year 1900.
If intelligence questions regarding baseball rules had appeared on
intelligence exams at that time, the results would have been
decidedly mixed. Some people would have been able to answer such
questions correctly, but many others would not, including those of
otherwise average-to-high intelligence, and this only because
baseball had not yet become widely entrenched within the human
environment (it was just then catching on). But after the exam was
finished, if one of those baseball-ignorant, question-misanswering
persons of average-to-high intelligence had been taken to the
ballpark, bought a ticket, sat with in the grandstands, explained the
rules, given a scorecard and pencil, a perfectly capable set of
behaviors would have swiftly emerged. After all, this is a person of
average-to-high intelligence, he can absorb and respond to baseball
rules just fine, they will give him not the slightest bit of trouble.
And around the year 1900, this scene would have actually been taking
place, again and again and again, not just a hypothetical example but
instead a real world, fully surveyable experience—an experience of
human intelligence observably on the rise.

The increase in raw intelligence scores from 1900 to 2000 has
everything to do with the increasing amount of environmental
intelligence (including the addition of baseball rules). It has
nothing to do with individual intellectual abilities. It has nothing
to do with neuronal intelligence.

Another Flynn paradox is called the identical twins paradox.
Flynn's words again:

"There is no doubt that twins separated at birth,
and raised apart, have very similar IQs, presumably because of their
identical genes. Indeed a wide range of studies show that genes
dominate individual differences in IQ and that environment is feeble.
And yet, IQ gains are so great as to signal the existence of
environmental factors of enormous potency. How can environment be
both so feeble and so potent?"

The short answer to this paradox is to say that environment,
despite Flynn's doubts, is indeed both feeble and potent. It is
feeble when considering individual and group intelligence differences
that manifest at a particular moment in time—the domain in
which neurology and genetics hold full sway. And environment is
potent when considering intelligence differences that manifest across
time—the domain in which neurology and genetics remain utterly
silent. But although the short answer resolves the paradox precisely,
it does not address what is actually the problem here, namely why
does Flynn think this is a paradox.

There could be several ways one might analogize this essay's model
of human intelligence. For instance, Lewontin's example of the seed
corn would do fine. Also, one might consider the height of ships
floating in a harbor, which differ from one another because of each
ship's inherent characteristics (individual differences at a moment
in time) and yet might change overall because of the rising and
falling tide (environmental influence across time). Flynn would not
find either Lewontin's seed corn or the rising and falling ships to
be paradoxical, and yet the exact same mechanism applied to human
intelligence seems to leave him utterly baffled. The question is why.

Flynn's bafflement arises from the ingrained assumption common to
all intelligence researchers: each has become completely convinced
that all intelligence differences and characteristics must ultimately
be described as neural differences and characteristics. In
other words, if an influence has no direct or indirect impact upon
the human brain, then it cannot be an influence related to human
intelligence. And so when Flynn considers environmental forces, which
he can see have the perfect potential for explaining the Flynn
effect, he stops short when he cannot find a plausible,
straightforward way to tie those forces back to the supposedly
requisite change in human genetics and/or neurology. This would be
equivalent to not seeing how the nitrates in the soil can impact the
seed corn's genetic structure, or not seeing how the water in the
harbor can alter the ships' physical characteristics. But Flynn does
not fall for this false dilemma with the seed corn or with the ships
because he understands that the actions of the nitrates are
orthogonal to the seed corn's genetics, and he understands
that the water level in the harbor is independent of each
ship's physical characteristics. It is only in the field of human
intelligence that he finds himself unable to countenance this
orthogonality and independence.

And yet that is all it takes. When one accepts the orthogonal
relationship between neuronal intelligence and environmental
intelligence, when one finally drops the the unnecessary and
unsupported requirement that all intelligence characteristics are
essentially neural characteristics, then the bafflement of the
identical twins paradox swiftly disappears.

The remaining Flynn paradox is called the factor analysis
paradox:

"How can intelligence be both one and many at the
same time or how can IQ gains be so contemptuous of g loadings? How
can people get more intelligent and have no larger vocabularies, no
larger stores of general information, no greater ability to solve
arithmetical problems?"

The first part of Flynn's statement is handled with ease: IQ gains
across time can be so contemptuous of g loadings because IQ gains
across time have absolutely nothing to do with neuronal
intelligence, and therefore have absolutely nothing to do with
Spearman's g. In fact, contemptuous is not the right
word; utter indifference would more precisely capture the
relationship.

The second part of the statement—why are intelligence gains
differential across the many aspects of intelligence—that question
is more intriguing and brings out additional features of
environmental intelligence. In this essay so far,
environmental intelligence has always been taken as a whole,
with an emphasis on the principle that as a whole, environmental
intelligence will be inexorably increasing. But when
environmental intelligence is broken down into its component
pieces and aspects, differing rates of increase can emerge. This will
be seen for instance geographically, where around this planet's
surface the rate of increase in environmental intelligence can
vary from place to place. In the late 1900s through today, for
example, the largest gains in environmental intelligence, and
therefore the largest gains in IQ scores, most likely occurred in
locales such as India and China, where there was a sudden and
tangible surge of the overall amount of pattern, structure and form
being added into the surroundings. Flynn's subcategories of
vocabulary, arithmetic and general knowledge too, although more
stable now, must have passed through epics where rapid increases
undoubtedly occurred. Words, both spoken and written, obviously
infiltrated the human environment at some point, as did numbers and
their practical uses, and although no one was recording the surge in
corresponding intelligence at that time, the surge clearly had to
have taken place. That fewer common words and numerical techniques
are being added into the environment today is compensated for by the
palpable expansions in such areas as electronic logic, transportation
networks, and so on. Plus none of these variable rates within the
components of environmental intelligence should cause one to
lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that the total amount of
environmental intelligence will tend to increase persistently,
and will do so without any influence upon, or any influence from,
neuronal intelligence. These several features of environmental
intelligence can be summarized as follows:

Over time, the total amount of environmental intelligence
will increase.

Different aspects of environmental intelligence will
increase at different rates at different times.

Increases in environmental intelligence are
independent of neuronal intelligence.

These principles of environmental intelligence (in
particular, principle 2) are adequate to address the questions raised
by the factor analysis paradox, and can do so without any unnecessary
reliance upon the characteristics of the human brain.

Environmental Complexity. Of the many offered
explanations for the Flynn effect, the one most similar to the model
proposed here is the notion of environmental complexity. Schooler
(1998) and Greenfield (1998) offer introductions to the idea, and it
is not uncommon in general discussion to hear someone suggest that
the modern usage of such things as puzzles, graphics and games might
have something to do with the increasing levels of tested
intelligence. Such suggestions are certainly on the right track, but
when they are examined carefully and thoroughly, it can be seen that
in many crucial respects their overall ability to explain the Flynn
effect falls a good deal short.

The first problem with the notion of environmental complexity is
that its proponents focus on certain things within the human
environment, and ignore the impact of the environment as a whole. For
instance, two commonly cited examples of the type of environmental
complexity that can increase intelligence are the widespread use of
video games, and the growing complexity and multivariate plot lines
in television shows and movies. Others might highlight the expanded
presence of visual imagery and puzzles within everyday life. But no
matter what thing or set of things is being considered, it becomes
immediately clear that by itself it cannot account for the ubiquitous
and relentless nature of the Flynn effect. The Flynn effect was
working its magic long before there even were video games and
television sets, and the Flynn effect remains prominent in locations
where video games and sophisticated dramas have yet to take much
hold. Alternative candidates for environment complexity might be
offered instead, but inevitably all must fall victim to the same
problem of limited temporal and spatial impact. The Flynn effect is a
population-wide, time-persistent phenomenon, and so any explanation
for the Flynn effect has to have population-wide, time-persistent
effect. Specific instances of environmental complexity are almost
guaranteed to never fit the bill.

The second problem with the notion of environmental complexity is
that its proponents—like nearly everyone else—insist on tying
their explanation back to human neurology. Playing video games, for
instance, is seen as expanding the capacity of working memory. Modern
movie plots are described as forming a larger number of simultaneous
connections within the logical neural circuitry. It would seem that
environmental complexity by itself is rather useless, that its only
real purpose is to prompt a major restructuring within the neurons, a
massive rewiring between the ears. Such ideas now run amok within
modern science, but they lack biological parsimoniousness and
plausibility, they beg plasticity miracles within the human head. In
truth, the human brain does not need to be changed by
instances of environmental complexity, the human brain needs merely
to respond to the stimulus
of environmental complexity, a mechanism conforming quite nicely—and
quite plausibly—to the traditional description of a neural system.

This essay's model of environmental intelligence, while
similar to the notion of environmental complexity, avoids the
shortcomings of environmental complexity by incorporating two
significant improvements. One, environmental intelligence
embraces a far more comprehensive context than does the notion of
environmental complexity—comprehensive enough to have
population-wide, time-persistent impact. Environmental
intelligence achieves this comprehensiveness by eschewing the
focus on particular things within the human environment and
incorporating instead nothing short of the total amount of
non-biological pattern, structure and form tangibly contained within
the human environment. Two, environmental intelligence, unlike
the notion of environmental complexity, severs the unnecessary tie
back to human neurology, allowing environmental intelligence
to accumulate and change without biological restriction and without
resort to any biological miracle. Environmental intelligence
takes the seed offered by the notion of environmental complexity and
expands it to its full logical limit, expands it into a fully
functioning component of human intelligence, one capable of serving
as the embodiment of human intelligence, and one capable of
serving as the orthogonal partner to the workings of the human brain.

Conclusion. A consequence that becomes readily
apparent from this essay's dual-component model of human intelligence
is that the Flynn effect cannot be regarded—as it too often is—as
merely a twentieth-century anomaly. Tracking the historical increase
in environmental intelligence, the Flynn effect must have
begun near the time of the human great leap forward and will have
been shadowing human existence ever since. And there is no reason to
expect the Flynn effect will end anytime soon.

The unseen hand propelling intelligence scores upward is
environmental intelligence, the total amount of non-biological
pattern, structure and form tangibly contained within the human
environment. It has remained unseen for so long because it has become
so inextricably right there, right before one's very eyes, the
very fabric of modern human existence, the map by which humans now
navigate their world. If there is something worthy of being called a
miracle in human intelligence, it would have to be this,
environmental intelligence, for no other species on this
planet has built its own version of environmental intelligence,
and humans did not build theirs for a very long time.

The human brain—or at least researchers' obsessive focus on the
human brain—has been given a thorough chastening within this essay,
but that does not nullify the importance of the brain to human
intelligence. The human neural system is still a necessary
component of human intelligence; all that has been demonstrated here
is that the human neural system is not a sufficient component
of human intelligence. Any comprehensive description of intelligence,
one capable of explaining individual and group intelligence
differences as well as explaining the Flynn effect, will incorporate
both neuronal intelligence and environmental intelligence,
two components working simultaneously and orthogonally, producing an
overall human intelligence that varies throughout the population and
that increases year after year after year.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Some of you may be following Dorothy
Bishop's series of hubbub regarding Johnny Matson's reign of
self-serving dishonor while in the role of editor for two Elsevier
journals, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders (RASD) and
Research in Developmental Disabilities (RIDD). Really, the
whole episode is kind of humorous and sad, in the way that most human
activities are. But I would be remiss if I were not to point out here
some observations that I am certain Bishop will overlook.

First of all, Matson's activities,
while certainly extreme, are not at all unfamiliar. His reliance upon
self citation, reciprocating citation and collegial nepotism differ
from the remainder of the research community only in degree, not in
kind. Everyone knows (wink, wink) that such activities have become
the bedrock of survival for those scrambling to stay afloat in
today's competitive academic industry. I am certain some might try to
deny it or try to justify it, but if I were to rule out protests from
those who have ever cited themselves, have ever cited a mentor or
colleague, or have ever curried favor for position or assignment,
then I am going to anticipate the push-back will be rather meager.

Second of all, Matson's activities are
extremely old news (if they can even be called news, given how
out in the open they were). I myself had noted all the way back in 2009 that RASD should be renamed The Matson Mouthpiece, and
Michelle Dawson has been tweeting about Matson's self-referencing
cesspool on practically a weekly basis since she opened her Twitter account. Bishop—who was acquainted with Matson, was aware of his
work, and was listed as an editor on RASD—Bishop arrived
extraordinarily late and ingénue to the party. But perhaps because
she has been so successful in getting grant funding and publishing papers, when she raised a ruckus the research
community finally took some notice.

Bishop's latest contribution to this
episode is an attempt to shame Elsevier into apologizing for the
Matson incident. The reason Bishop believes that an apology is in
order is about as informative and revealing as any reason can be. Her
words:

It matters because RIDD and RASD are
presented to the world as peer-reviewed journals, backed up by the
'distinguished brand' of Elsevier. We live in times when there is
competition for jobs and prizes, and these will go to those who have
plenty of publications in peer-reviewed journals, preferably with
high citations. If an editor bypasses peer review and encourages
self-citation, then the quality of the work in the journal is
misrepresented and some people gain unfair advantages from this. The
main victims here are those who published in RASD and RIDD in good
faith, thinking that acceptance in the journal was a marker of
quality. They will be feeling pretty bitter about the 'added value'
of Elsevier right now, as the value of their own work will be
degraded by association with these journals.

Think about that statement for a
moment. Think about it good and hard. Any of you who have ever put
forth science as the preeminent means for acquiring truth and
understanding about our world, think good and hard about what that
statement must imply about what is actually valued in today's
science. I certainly cannot fault the statement for being inaccurate,
but I would think that for many of today's scientists, the exposure
is just too embarrassing.

Or let me put it this way. If in
today's research environment, Einstein were to publish his special
relativity essay in a journal such as Science, the essay would
of course be held in the highest regard by everyone—and this before
anyone had even bothered to read it or understand it. On the other
hand, if Einstein were to publish his essay in something like RASD as
it was run under Johnny Matson's leadership, then the essay would now
be regarded as forever tainted. And if Einstein were to publish his
essay on the back of a set of cocktail napkins, it would be
universally and instantaneously panned as totally worthless, not
worth a glance. The contents of the essay? Well, what do they
have to do with anything? (By the way, for anyone interested, the
journal in which Einstein's essay first appeared was run with many
remarkable similarities to Matson's RASD. Just saying.)

Listen, I am going to be blunt and
crude about what I think is going on here: today's scientists do not
give a shit about science. What they give a shit about is
publication, reputation, grants and jobs. End of story.